Belle-Midwest, Inc. v. Missouri Property & Casualty Insurance Guarantee Association

56 F.3d 977, 1995 WL 354063
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJuly 18, 1995
Docket94-3721
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 56 F.3d 977 (Belle-Midwest, Inc. v. Missouri Property & Casualty Insurance Guarantee Association) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Belle-Midwest, Inc. v. Missouri Property & Casualty Insurance Guarantee Association, 56 F.3d 977, 1995 WL 354063 (8th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

STROM, District Judge.

Belle-Midwest, Inc. appeals an order entered in the United States District Court 1 for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, dismissing its claim without prejudice on the condition that plaintiff pay the defendant $12,027.69 in attorney’s fees and costs before the case could be refiled. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). We dismiss the appeal.

Generally, a moving plaintiff may not appeal from an order granting a voluntary dismissal. Bowers v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 668 F.2d 369 (8th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 946, 102 S.Ct. 2013, 72 L.Ed.2d 469 (1982). This circuit recognizes an exception, however, where the plaintiff is legally prejudiced by the conditions imposed by the district court in granting the voluntary dismissal and plaintiff has evidenced no acquiescence to those conditions. Id. at 370. In the present case, Belle-Midwest met the second prerequisite when it filed a motion to set aside and hold for naught the district court’s order granting the voluntary dismissal. Nevertheless, Belle-Midwest cannot demonstrate that it has been “legally prejudiced” by the district court’s conditions. As we stated in Bowers, “although restricting to a certain degree his right to refile this action, [the condition] does not ‘severely circumscribe’ his ability to actually reinitiate the suit.” Id. In granting a motion for voluntary dismissal, district courts typically im *979 pose the condition that plaintiff pay the defendant the reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in defending the suit. Marlow v. Winston & Strawn, 19 F.3d 300, 303 (7th Cir.1994). In fact, this Court has held that under certain circumstances, it is an abuse of discretion for a district court not to condition a voluntary dismissal upon plaintiffs payment of costs and attorney’s fees if the case is reñled. Kern v. TXO Production Corp., 738 F.2d 968, 972 (8th Cir.1984). Such was the case here and we find that $12,027.69 was a reasonable figure. Under these circumstances, the order of dismissal is not appeal-able by Belle-Midwest. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

1

. The Honorable Stephen M. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Baxter v. Stephens
E.D. Arkansas, 2023
Richards v. Piccinini
W.D. Missouri, 2019
Angela Nails v. Debbie Pippin
637 F. App'x 242 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)
Klamath Irrigation District v. United States
116 Fed. Cl. 117 (Federal Claims, 2014)
Emmitt v. Dickey
188 F. App'x 681 (Tenth Circuit, 2006)
Thoubboron v. Ford Motor Co.
809 A.2d 1204 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2002)
Mercer Tool Corp. v. Friedr. Dick GmbH
179 F.R.D. 391 (E.D. New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 F.3d 977, 1995 WL 354063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belle-midwest-inc-v-missouri-property-casualty-insurance-guarantee-ca8-1995.